Perhaps you would like to explain how DNA can survive for millions of years. As far as I know it has never been observed to happen. BTW, you do realize that the the half-life of DNA is only 521 years. So it cannot possibly last for millions of years. Which means that dinosaur fossils are not nearly as old as you think. What else did evolutionists get wrong?
This is about evolution - not abiogenesis and not religion. You failed to cite anything - which was the point of my post.
Abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory. Even Richard Dawkins agrees. Did you read the article? It describes how abiogenesis is impossible. Go on. Read it. What are you afraid of? That is the evidence you asked for.
In one case, ticks that fed on dino blood were found trapped in amber. https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ther-found-in-amber-blood-parastites-science/ I had to type "dinosaur dna" into a browser to find that - it took grueling seconds. Once more: no cites to back your claims.
Doesn't matter if you agree or not. Several evolutionary scientists say that it is. It's also in several evolutionary courses, including the one at the University of California, Berkley. Abiogenesis is also included in many textbooks on evolution. Try again.
Text books and courses can treat both topics. The fact of the matter is that the mechanism of evolutionary progression in living matter is not necessarily identical to the mechanism of the formation of first life.
Abiogenesis is the evolution of life from lifeless chemicals. Notice the word I used? Evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are both part of an unbroken chain of events from the distant past to the present day. They are one and the same. The reason you don't like it is because we are nowhere near coming up with an explanation of how life started. It makes evolutionists look really bad, so they try to distance themselves from it. But they are one and the same.
Yes, it's interesting. Words have various meanings. And yes, working on how life started is very different than working on how speciation works, fields of taxonomy, medicine, agriculture, etc. The difference between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is so large that it warrants entirely different tools, areas of study, etc. In fact, how life began is a study that warrants a specific name so people don't get confused. I know evolution gets used more broadly. Many talk about evolution as starting with the big bang. That should be fun for you, because it's another opportunity for you to find something not fully understood and then make your standard claim that "god did it" - thus convincing yourself that science has it all wrong.
You still haven't answered my question. What caused the universe to exist? It requires a causative agent. What was it? What caused the the event that caused the universe to exist? What caused the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that? You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. So there was a primal cause that was not caused. This is a physical impossibility. So the only answer is a non physical Creator. Get it now?
I know your argument: "I don't know" means "god did it and science is crap". If you had read other posts of mine, you would know that I'm not opposed to you seeing the big bang as something god did. Seeing science and religion as opposing forces is a big mistake. I'd point out that the Pope doesn't see religion and science as opposing forces - a highly limited but still existing point of agreement. The part I'm concerned about is that when this nation sees science as crap it has a seriously bad effect on the policy decisions we make, on education and on our ability to compete in the changing world economy. So, there are areas where we can agree or disagree, but you can't have science as your bitch.
Thank you for proving my point that you utterly lack the basic understanding of the necessary scientific concepts and terminology in order to engage in any discussion WRT evolution. Furthermore there is absolutely nothing to be gained from engaging anyone who has no interest in learning either.
I have a fairly simple question Do you agree with the scientific consensus that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is less about 5billion years old And That modern humans are less than 100 million years old If not, what do you think would be your best guess for these numbers
Needless to say you have made no attempt whatsoever to research this topic and familiarize yourself with the origins of proteins and RNA and what might have preceded them. Had you actually done so you would not be regurgitating this theist nonsense of yours. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests/ Needless to say you will probably cherry pick a sentence or two out of the article and misrepresent it as "proof" of your theist drivel because you can't grasp the concepts that are being examined by that research.
The ironic contradiction in those two sentences is hilarious. AKA Grugore tacitly admitting that he cannot handle any scientific facts whatsoever.
All of those questions without any smidgeon of scientific curiosity as what the actual answers might be? Such is the shrinking bubble of fundamentalist theism to never want to deal with the actual science because it refutes the cognitive dissonance needed to "believe" in the superstitions that arose in the Stone Age.
Once again the glaring FAILURE to understand scientific terminology is on readily apparant! https://www.livescience.com/23861-fossil-dna-half-life.html Cherry picking one sentence without any comprehension of what it actually means is patently obvious and establishes beyond any doubt that the OP does not have any grasp of the subject matter he is erroneously attempting to disparage using theist disinformation.
Another load of bovine excrement. Evolution is NOT the same thing as the Origin of Life. The study of the origin of life begins with the geophysical and chemical aspects to achieve biological organisms. The planet did not "evolve" and neither did the chemical elements on the planet. It was more akin to billions of chemistry experiments happening under billions of varying environmental conditions over a period of about half a billion years or so. Only AFTER life originated did it begin the evolutionary process of adapting to changing environmental conditions in order to survive.
BZZZT Wrong! The fallacious ASSUMPTION that the universe was "created" from "nothing" is pure theist bunkum. But thanks for openly admitting that you are a creationist and therefore have no interest is actually learning about science.
It is painfully obvious that the evidence you seek cannot be provided due to simple biology. The ONLY way to convince you of what virtually everyone accepts would be to show up at your door with a fish tank, place it on the kitchen table, put a frog in it and make it become a tiger in front of your eyes. I realize you have me on ignore after I called you out last time but, you know this commentary is also true.
prove anything you claimed above, with peer reviewed scientific papers please. Or admit you pulled it from your ass.
